In discussions surrounding the strong odds that John McCain will claim the Republican nomination for President, more than a few people have assumed that because I have not trashed his reputation and questioned his patriotism, that I am a supporter of McCain for President.

That assumption is not correct.

Texas will hold its Primary on March 4, 2008. At this time, I am not sure for whom I will be voting, much less whether I am ready to actively campaign for anyone still on the ticket. For the record, my present Top 10 ranking of candidates for my vote for President of the United States would be as follows:

1. Condoleezza Rice (most qualified, but refused to run)
2. Fred Thompson (speaks well, but refused to take the race seriously)
3. Jeb Bush (competent, articulate, conservative, but no one wants 3 Bushes in 4 Administrations)
4. My wife (qualified and eminently sensible, but she won't run)
5. Me (no worse than any of the front-runners on any count)
6. My primary dog, Bingo (the cutest and smartest Collie since Lassie)
7. My back-up dog, Cody (Black Lab, is loyal, beautiful, and a talented comedian to boot)
8. Dick Cheney (the effect on Democrats alone would be worth the vote)
9. Ronald Reagan (if you're going to send a message, noting that a dead conservative is better than a fake one should be clear)
10. Bruce Willis (probably the toughest real Republican still active)

Having said that, I am willing to consider voting for John McCain or Mike Huckabee, provided one of them can earn my vote. While I am not one of those screaming extremists who would pretend that a Democrat in the White House is anything but a catastrophe and a direct threat to the ideals of America, neither do I forget the offenses of McCain and Huckabee, offenses not to my sensibility but to my common sense.

-- [ continued ] -

John McCain will not get my vote if his main claim is that he is the most 'electable' candidate. That was the Democrats' strategy in 2004, to select a buffoon because they thought he would perform well in the General Election. It also occurs to me that John McCain supported John Kerry many times in 2004, a troubling behavior in a purported Republican, let alone a self-proclaimed Conservative. You need to explain why you chose the wrong side in 2004, Senator McCain.

John McCain needs to explain why he felt a hand-picked group in a back room should make decisions on judicial appointments, rather than let the Senate do its job. John McCain needs to explain, clearly, what justices he would nominate to the Supreme Court, and on what merits. And he needs to apologize, in public to Pickering, Estrada, Owens, and the others he trashed in the name of expediency and political advantage. John McCain needs to apologize for and fully repudiate McCain-Feingold. These are the starting points, not trivial details. I and other Conservatives have a right to demand bonafides from McCain, while he had no right to demand anything just because he enjoys the delegate lead right now.

As for Mike Huckabee, he too must answer questions. I am a fundamentalist Christian, which sometimes makes it difficult to speak to people of other beliefs. Too often self-proclaimed leaders of my faith engage in unchristian behavior, even in the name of their religion, and in so doing attack peace and respect rather than build on love for their fellow man. I would ask Huckabee to explain why he brought up his religion in such a self-serving way; it diminishes his credibility and my sense of his integrity, rather than increasing it. I would ask Huckabee to explain why, I he wants to be the Republican nominee, he insulted and attacked the Republican President's foreign policy and the War in Iraq, especially when Huckabee's demonstrated lack of comprehension in that area is so dismal. I want Huckabee to explain hwo he would sell the Fair Tax to Congress, and what he will do when they kill the bill on arrival. I want Huckabee to explain his tax hikes as Governor; raising the sales tax in 1996, supporting an Internet sales tax in 2001, and raising taxes on nursing home patients in 2001. How does this make him a 'conservative'? The Cato Institute does not grade Huckabee a conservative, so where are his credentials? We Conservatives are outraged by spending; it's one of the few areas where I disagree with President Bush. But Huckabee's record as Governor included a 65% increase in state spending. How does that make him qualified to write the Federal budget? As Governor, Huckabee supported a higher minimum wage, and demanded 'price-gouging' investigations of oil companies. Huckabee's credentials are in serious doubt, and I for one expect better answers from him if he wants my vote.

I had not previously mentioned Ron Paul. It is difficult to address just how far from rational his positions are, without giving them far more attention than they deserve. In short, however, his views on National Security show he is more in line with Michael Moore than Bill Roggio, his sense of the War in Iraq shows he is more in tune with Alec Baldwin than General Petraeus, and his views on the Economy show he is far more aligned with Karl Marx than Milton Friedman. At best, Congressman Ron Paul is sadly uneducated and misguided. At worst, he is dangerously unbalanced.

I said in earlier posts, that I think people should be aware of the likely consequences of their actions. I realize that even if I vote for McCain or Huckabee this fall, they may lose if I do not also actively campaign for them, that an unenthused vote may be of little value. Then again, I have also said clearly, that a candidate bears the weight of his campaign's success or failure, that no one owes their vote to anyone. And as far as the Primary goes, right now writing in a vote for my dog looks like my most rational course. Mr. McCain and Mr. Huckabee are welcome, of course, to make a better case than they have so far.

I had not previously mentioned Ron Paul. It is difficult to address just how far from rational his positions are, without giving them far more attention than they deserve. In short, however, his views on National Security show he is more in line with Michael Moore than Bill Roggio, his sense of the War in Iraq shows he is more in tune with Alec Baldwin than General Petraeus, and his views on the Economy show he is far more aligned with Karl Marx than Milton Friedman. At best, Congressman Ron Paul is sadly uneducated and misguided. At worst, he is dangerously unbalanced.

Everything in this paragraph is 100% incorrect. Where are you getting this "information"? Take a few moments to research your subject, why don't you. Wow.

"We cannot suspend the laws of economics or the principles of human action any more than we can suspend the laws of physics. Yet this is precisely what Congress attempts to do time and time again, no matter how many times history proves them wrong or economists easily demonstrate the harms caused by a certain policy. The nation would be well-served if Congress spent more time reading the works of Milton Friedman, and less time worrying about petty party spoils." -- Ron Paul (11/20/06)

Strike one, swf. Just because he praises Friedman, does not mean Paul understands him or follows his precepts. Paul opposes globalization, for example, something strongly promoted by Friedman. Friedman understood that gold is only one commodity and is used only as a hedge against inflation, while Paul wants to base our economy on it. Friedman understood deficit spending is sometimes the appropriate measure for a government to shake a recession, while Paul opposes it in all instances.

"Paul deplores the federal deficit, but insists the only way "to solve that problem is to cut spending, not to raise taxes -- or to not lower taxes when you get a chance." As a first step he advocates the elimination of all taxes on capital -- estates, capital gains, interest income, and dividends. ...

he out-Reagans Reagan in his unwavering opposition to the government regulation of business. He may have seemed like a nut when he was one of only three congressmen to vote against the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. But weren't the real nuts the conservative congressmen who got swept up in a witch-hunt against "corporate crooks," and voted to impose the most sweeping, burdensome, anti-competitive, and costly financial regulation in a generation?

Paul is an advocate of free trade -- to a fault. He believes deeply in unrestricted trade between people and nations. Yet he votes against free-trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA because he believes that trade is a right, not a gift for Congress to bestow in certain circumstances. Without such agreements, the reality is that trade is probably less free than it is with them. Is Paul a nut for letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? Perhaps, but for Paul it's a point of principle. He told me, "I don't call them free-trade agreements; I call them managed trade agreements." Instead, Paul would like to see a simple policy of "low and uniform" tariffs for all products from all nations.

Perhaps the most unusual element of Paulonomics is the idea of abolishing the Federal Reserve." -- Don Luskin

Luddite? Not quite sure how so but would be interested in your expouding upon that assertation!

See Paul's Economic Plan - below is from section 3: Monetary Policy -

3. Monetary Policy Reform

Televise Federal Open Market Committee Meetings. An institution as powerful as the Federal Reserve deserves full public scrutiny.

Expand Transparency and Accountability at the Federal Reserve
Pass H.R. 2754 to require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to continue to make available to the public on a weekly basis information on the measure of the M3 monetary aggregate and its components.

Return Value to Our Money. Legalize gold and silver as a competing currency. Level the long-term boom and bust business cycle by passing H.R. 4683, which would repeal provisions of the federal criminal code relating to issuing coins of gold, silver, or other metal for use as current money and making or possessing likenesses of such coins.

It's much easier to say "return to the gold standard" than to introduce the idea of competing currencies - can you image McCanekilledAbel trying to understand that concept!!! Wowwee..that would've been fun!

"and his views on the Economy show he is far more aligned with Karl Marx than Milton Friedman"

You'll never live this one down, unfortunately. Your grandchildren will be hearing about the time their grandpa made the most ignorant comment ever posted about a presidential candidate on the internet.

This is all rehash, but given all the blind support for any person who gets the Republican nomination I might vote for McCain just to help prove how bad an idea that is. Yes, the democrats will be a disaster, but that's what's needed to wake up the American electorate and sweep the democrats from power. Then and only then can America move forward as the leader of the free world.

Lots of assertions, but still no back-up. Here's a clue - Paul is not a suitable authority to legitimize his own claims!

Let's start with the deficit. Do you know what Adam Smith said about Trade Deficits? It's not what Paul says!

As to gold, a history question not for debate but one you should look up, is why did EVERY nation on the planet abandon the 'gold standard'? Hint - it's the same reason mercantilism is a failure. I also find it amusing that none of the Paulites explains how enough gold will be made available to meet the economic demands, or how - given his 'you cannot fight the laws of economics' - Paul seriously thinks he can control the conomy through subjective imposition of a control commodity.

I also note the only defense presented by the Paulites is a weak economic argument. I guess you accept the points regarding Paul's foreign policy resume and defense positions. That at least is wise ...

Clueless for McCain: "I am not one of those screaming extremists who would pretend that a Democrat in the White House is anything but a catastrophe and a direct threat to the ideals of America."

You really don't see the irony of you spitting out "screaming extremists" at those who say they will not support McCain. It doesn't even register as a bit hypocritical that your previous criticisms of McCain, which you proudly admit to owning are now screaming extremism, patriotism questioning and reputation trashing.

It's clear where the spit is coming from and who is on the edge of an anger induced stroke. McCain denialists are not the ones who are freaking out. They are making a sober assessment of the direction their current political party is taking and using an otherwise losing vote to influence that direction.

and his views on the Economy show he is far more aligned with Karl Marx than Milton Friedman.

Well, I'll be doggoned. Hayek and Von Mises are Marxists? I learn something new every day on internet.

Excuse me while I indulge in a huge belly laugh.

Before I go, let me point out that the major difference between Friedman and Hayek and Von Mises is that Friedman was a monetarist. He supported centralized control (recognize the Marxist language--"central control?" ) of the value of currency via the Federal Reserve--as long as the Reserve would act within certain bounds. Sadly, as is true of all central planners, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve--being fallible human beings--resorts to expediency over adherence to principle (Friedman's prohibition on more than 3% growth in the money supply) That's why one of the tenets of Conservatism has been the absolute need for checks and balances in every realm--which central control does not provide-- because we are fallible human beings who cannot be perfected while on this earth.

So, I would revise your sentence as follows:

"and his views on the Economy, with respect to monetary policy, show Milton Friedman to be far more aligned with Karl Marx than Hayek, Von Mises--or Dr. Ron Paul."

"Return Value to Our Money. Legalize gold and silver as a competing currency. Level the long-term boom and bust business cycle by passing H.R. 4683, which would repeal provisions of the federal criminal code relating to issuing coins of gold, silver, or other metal for use as current money and making or possessing likenesses of such coins."

While Paul believes it was a mistake to abandon the gold standard, I don't think you'll find anything in his campaign platform calling for a return to it.

"...as a first step toward eliminating the Fed, Paul advocates "legalizing competition -- allow gold and silver to circulate with the dollar, and take off all the taxes on gold and silver money."

Ah, gold! The mere mention of it in today's modern economy brands you as a nut, or at least an economic hick. But remember, American money was linked to gold in one way or another for most of our history, until 1971 in fact. In his first year in office as president, Ronald Reagan established a blue-ribbon commission to investigate a possible return to gold. It went nowhere, but was Reagan a nut to ask the question? More fundamentally, is there anything nutty about money that would be, as Paul advocates, "convertible and redeemable in something of real value"?" -- Don Luskin

As for foreign policy, if you're in favor of undeclared, unconstitutional, "preemptive" wars that kill and maim thousands of american soldiers and close to a million Iraqis (not to mention sqandering billions of tax dollars) -- I can't help you there. McCain is your man. Even your dog has more sense than that.

"undeclared" - Congress passed the resolution authorizing the war. And repeatedly funded it. Also, the UN passed a resolution which authorized the resumption of hostilities. So, your claim there is bogus.

"unconstitutional" - sorry, but just because you do not like a war, does not make it 'unconstitutional', especially given the extraordinary steps taken by Bush to involve all stakeholders.

"pre-emptive" - yet another fave lie from the Left. The war was a resumption from the first Gulf War, and Iraq repeatedly violated key provisions of the cease-fire.

'killing and maiming' - 50 million people freed in 2 countries, versus the rape rooms, torture prisons and mass graves under the old regimes. It says something when someone sides with the monsters, just because their BDS has gotten too extreme to control anymore.

This was a good war. Unpopular, but the right thing to do even so. I am truly sad for you, that you cannot understand this basic fact.

"Since you are having trouble understanding how claiming to be Friedman is a bit off from actually pursuing his policies, let me ask you a simple question, Jerri - why do people but Treasury Bonds?"

What? I don't understand your comment. I was responding to your claim that Ron Paul's positions are Marxist as opposed to being in alignment with Milton Friedman (whom I assumed you consider to be free enterprise--which he was except in monetary policy).

I will make one observation on the issue of treasury securities. Abu Dhabi recently "invested in" (bailed out), Citicorp rather than buying treasury securities. They chose to put their money in a failing bank over U.S. Treasuries, based on an argument that they were "diversifying". So, they found a failing bank a more attractive investment than U.S. Treasuries. I find that disturbing.

As a Christian I am constantly amazed with the conservative Christians who are gung ho for an unprovoked, immoral, unethical, un-just-by-every-measure-of-the-theory war. Amazing...tell me DJ - who would Jesus bomb?

DJ - I don't hate anyone...not sure how you inferred that from any of my posts...

The deal is though, brother, that these types of atrocities occur around the globe all the time...why are we not in Kenya at this moment? why not China where there are forced abortions, etc? How about Saudi Arabia where a female who commits adultry is put to death, young girls set on fire for disobeying their fathers? Why not Darfur?

And exactly how does that correlate to a Marxist monetary policy? Still waiting....

Assuming your comment is not spam, we will approve your comment when time permits; there is no need to re-post your comment. Comments to older stories that add no value to the existing comment thread may not be approved.

"The federal government issues U.S. Treasury bonds to finance its deficit spending. The largest holders of those Treasury notes-- our largest creditors-- are foreign governments and foreign individuals. Asian central banks and investors in particular, especially China, have been happy to buy U.S. dollars over the past decade. But foreign governments will not prop up our spending habits forever. Already, Asian central banks are favoring Euro-denominated assets over U.S. dollars, reflecting their belief that the American economy is headed for trouble. It's akin to a credit-card company cutting off a borrower who has exceeded his credit limit one too many times." -- Ron Paul (10/25/04)

OK, I went into the system and found them. Something called 'Akismet' (an automated spam filter) decided they were 'spam'. I think it's because you started with 'blockquote'.

As to their content, I have to say again that I do not consider Ron Paul a valid source to authenticate Ron Paul's opinions. As to Buchanan, not all Conservatives are good people, and that's all I will say about that.

I see Aaron has devolved to personal insults, how Christian of him.

I really would like you to consider the questions I posted, because they speak to the heart of the issue:

jesus would bomb the money lenders in the temple. that passage alway stuck out for me, because i had always heard growing up that jesus was for turning the other cheek, and for peaceful action. yet, here he was, beating and driving the money lenders out of the temple.

making precious metal currency isn't a huge deal to me one way or another. as long as the value of the currency is related to the value of the precious metal that it is made from. however, a precious metal, or other commodity, based currency, and thus economy, is just plain DUMB.

i heard this past weekend that it really isn't isolationalism that paul wants, it's non-interventialism. but he wants to pull back all of our troops everywhere in the world back home, not spend any money trying to influence others in our interests, and would abrogate any ability to project US economic or military might, that's isolationalism. and it's just DUMB

"The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's... The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983)."

"As Afghan rebels fought Soviet invaders in the 1980s, the United States gave aid from afar while Saudi exile Osama bin Laden provided support from within Afghanistan. ...

Ronald Reagan, saw Afghanistan as a potential Vietnam for the Soviets' "Evil Empire."

Thousands of Muslim radicals joined the CIA and mujahedeen, including bin Laden, the wealthy son of a Saudi road builder. Though he didn't actually take up arms, he helped build roads and arms depots, using his own funds and CIA money.

"We funded him, we and the Saudis," said Glynn Wood, professor of international policy at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. "He was not seen as any kind of threat until Desert Storm.""

It is an historical fact, for example, that Reagan played Iraq and Iran off each other, and at that time Iran presented the greater threat. Support for Iraq, as you should know, ended when evidence of atrocities by Saddam's government came to light, including the use of Chemical Weapons (WMD, by the way) on Kurds in Iraqi territory. This is just one reason why Iraq and Iran fought to a standstill, the war lasting all the way to 1989, and one reason Saddam hated America - we refused to sponsor his dictatorship once we knew what he was doing.

Revisionism is common, but such lies were long ago refuted, only the most deluded and spiteful still believe them.

"To me "conservative" is a legacy of values that are at once timeless and vulnerable, not just a label. It is a faith; the humbling perspective that not every change represents progress [check]; a fierce defense of individuals and national freedom [check]; and a healthy skepticism toward institutions too large, too remote, and too impersonal to be truly democratic [check]. Conservatives share the Founders' fears over too much power concentrated in too few hands [check] . We prefer organizing society from the grassroots to dictating it from the top down. [big check]"

just keep on lyao and good luck with that whole McCain thing in 2008...

"Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.

By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq."

ok, gotta go. it's been fun sparring. good luck and I hope you at least gained a little more respect for Dr. Paul (if not for me).

One thing we have in common: I'd vote for either one of my dogs instead of McCain too.

You do know that the founding fathers fully expected elected officials to have a solid moral foundation. The left always talks about the separation of church and state as though that's written in the constitution; it is not. The only thing they wrote about was to keep government from supporting or endorsing a particular religion; basically forbidding theocracies.

The left has really advanced the idea that the only good president is a secular one. This is in support of progressive ideals which came directly from Karl Marx as did the income tax. Progressives, like Hillary, believe in moral relativism which is basically morals that shift with the circumstances. Here is the left defining it:

Now the religious right believes in moral absolutism or a definite set of moral values defined by God. Libertarians and other conservatives on the right not so religiously inclined, like me, tend to believe in moral realism or objectivism; more like logically deduced but definite morals values. For most practical purposes all of the right's moral values are essentially the same and are diametrically opposed to moral relativism. I believe Huckabee brought up his religion because, as he says, it defines who he is which is certainly not a progressive. However, I'm afraid this important distinction is lost on most people or exaggerated into nonsense.

Attacking Bush for "an arrogant bunker mentality" was supposed to be about how he would try to do better by listening to more people like those recommending the surge instead of one person like Rumsfeld. I think he also meant he would try more diplomacy. I do agree it was a bad choice of words. I do believe he would listen to the experts, the generals, and let them do what it takes to win.

If Huckabee could somehow win the nomination, a brokered convention maybe, he could get more air time for the FairTax which could turn it into a mandate if he wins. There is usually a honeymoon period where newly inaugurated presidents can get passed many things they want. If they refuse he could use the bully pulpit to continue to sell the idea and get the citizens to put pressure on congress to pass it.

I do believe the FairTax is the issue that will win the white house for republicans as long as it gets the air time. It can attract many Independents and Democrats because economic growth helps everybody and we absolutely need it to be able to handle our obligations of the entitlement programs. The Democrat candidates are only offering more spending and more taxes on the wealthy which will just slow down our economy even more. The FairTax is non-partisan and gives Conservatives a freer free market and economic growth that they'll love and Liberals get the same and probably more revenues for the big government they love. It has to appeal to both parties to pass and I think it does. Here's a good article by Louis R. Woodhill who is on the Leadership Council of the Club for Growth.

It looks to me that Huckabee raised consumption taxes and lowered income taxes like a mini version of the FairTax. I believe Romney saying Mike raised taxes $500 million because Mike had that much as a surplus is a lot like saying Reagan doubled taxes because revenues doubled after his tax cuts. I've become very disappointed in conservative pundits this election because it looks like they don't do any research but reading the headlines.

As far as spending goes he did have a mess after Clinton and Tucker and a court order to improve education. He also had to work with a state full of Clinton Democrats, around 86%, and I'm sure he had to do a little give and take. It was very similar for Reagan when he was governor of California. This stuff is not too hard to find on the internet. I think Mike prefers spending what air time he can talking about what he wants to do instead of defending what he had to do.

Is Huckabee a perfect candidate? Of course not, no one is. However, he does have some good qualities; for instance, he's a great communicator, not like Reagan, but in his own way. I sometimes think that's one of the most important roles of a president because so many things need to be explained to the people like the FairTax.

I hope Huckabee wins the nomination, but it will probably take some wheeling and dealing at a brokered convention. While the pundits are saying Huckabee needs 83% of the vote to win they are ignoring he and Ron Paul only need 60% to force a brokered convention. I'll keep my fingers crossed because I can taste that economic growth of the FairTax already.

So I ask, I know why people buy T-Bills (not BUT). For the individual it is to save, for a nation it is to store wealth, and/or to equalize the value of their currency on the open market. However, when a nation, China, pegs their currency to another that causes distortions. This has to occur by the other country either buying assets in the country with a deficit or to print more of their own currency to buy US backed assets.

Buying something on sale? Hmm. I do buy items on sale, the question was of a liquidity issue, for city bank and they were troubled and needed a quick infusion of capital. Time will tell if there is a major liquidity crisis in the near future, or not.

You stated that Ron Paul was against globalization. I disagree, from my perspective he is not. He is simply against managed trade agreements. Take CAFTA, which requires US law to come into relation with CODEX rules (look it up if you need but I am not sourcing the information for you). This causes me to track all of my animals from birth to death, sending all information to the government.

You also state we should intervene in other nations affairs when there is a despot or torture. So what do we do when we ourselves lack the transparency to know wether or not we torture. With the elimination of habeus corpus, who knows what will happen in this country.

Would it not be wiser for us to focus on the war on terror, by trying to stop the Saudi Madrasas which instill the desire to be a terrorist? If we started focusing on an energy initiative in the US, we could eliminate our dependence on oil quickly. That would dry up the funds for the Saudis to buy weapons, though we might still give them to them, to maintain their dictatorship. Which has its currency pegged to the dollar and so are experiencing 10+% inflation today.

I am sorry Paul is wrong in a couple areas, but he makes more sense than the rest.

Also on Paul not listening to Patreas. Well Bush did not listen to his General Batiste. So general Batiste retired from the military so he could speak out against his Commander in Chief. This caused him to lose his consulting job he gained after retiring.

Also in the posts, I believe you spoke of Paul not being able to manage the economy. I thin that is the point, left to its own devices the economy will get along very well. People will have to be personally responsible and bear the consequences of poor investing themselves.

The government has helped in crafting legislation which will benefit corporations. The mortgage interest deduction, set up to encourage home ownership. Seems like a good idea, and yet, coupled with 401ks IRAs which require that you invest in some one else's company as opposed to saving in your own home.

We live with managed trade and really have not had much free trade. We have definitely not had a government that protected private property, and has for the most part governed to protect special interests.

1.) Ron Paul is crazy. Nuff said.
2.) John McCain is asking Conservatives to do that which he has not done in the past. He has bucked the party and conservatives numerous times and now he is asking us not to buck the party. Sorry Johnny Boy, I will not be voting for you in november, nor will i be voting for you ever.

If Hillary Clinton herself changed to a Republican and then started talking about how conservative she is and was, i wouldn't vote for her. Same with John McCain. I've heard too many of his lies to start believing him now.

The argument that he's better than hillary and obama begs the question, "Better for what or who?"

John McCain as president won't be good for conservatives, it won't be good for the republican party and won't be good for the country. Likewise, the same can be said about Hillary Clinton and Obama. No matter who wins the presidency, one thing is for damn sure, Conservatives have already lost in the fall. Who cares if McCain wins? I sure don't care who wins now. I'm kind of hoping for Huckabee to pull it out so i can go vote and only partially hold my nose.

You know that I've always been in the 25% club or whatever it is that have been supportive of President Bush. I propose that you make a new thread that takes a sample (not scientific, but still informative and fun) and see what kind of support that President Bush has in light of our likely choices available now. Since it is almost certain that our next President will be either McCain, Obama, or Hillary, how many would prefer that President Bush get another 8 years rather than one of the above?